Case law

State v. Spence

81 Wash. 2d 788 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1973

The conduct whereof he was convicted was clearly prohibited and specifically charged. … Ct. 1670, 1674 (1972), defendant argued that the “immunity provided by the New Jersey statute is unconstitutionally vague because it immunizes a witness only against the use and derivative use of ‘responsive’ answers and

Armstrong v. Armstrong

100 Wash. 270 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1918

In the present case, the divorce decree, which established the grantor’s ownership of the property as his separate estate, likewise fixed the wife’s claim for alimony a continuing obligation which the divorced husband was … Both realized that the transfer, if effective, would accomplish the inevitable (and we believe the intended) result—secure the property for the use and enjoyment of the new relationship, with Armstrong immune from the alimony

State v. TEC

92 P.3d 263 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 24, 2004

conclusion that a disposition within the standard range would constitute a manifest injustice; and (3) the sentence is neither clearly too lenient nor clearly too excessive. … In this case, a qualified treatment program was unavailable. Thus, albeit through no fault of his own, T.C. clearly was unable to "make satisfactory progress in treatment" as required under RCW 13.40.160(3)(b)(ix).

Dearinger v. Eli Lilly and Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 5, 2024

immunity from strict liability. … To establish proximate 4 causation, the plaintiff must show both cause in fact and legal causation. Id.

State v. UTILITIES & TRANSP. COMM'N

93 Wash. 2d 398 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1980

I FACTUAL BACKGROUND The State has no general immunity from liability in civil cases and is legally liable for its torts. RCW 4.92. … Thus the State clearly has not shown that the Public Service Revolving Fund finances the activity causing liability.

Klineburger v. King County

189 Wash. App. 153 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2015

The county hearing examiner affirmed the order, concluding that the County did not have the authority to disturb Ecology’s determination that the Klineburgers’ property did not qualify for an exception to state regulations … DPER informed them that they could not build in the floodway unless they could establish that their site qualified as an exception to the floodplain management regulations.

City of Ellensburg v. King Videocable Co.

80 Wash. App. 901 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 19, 1996

. §§ 521-559 ) (1984 Cable Act), thereby establishing a national policy concerning cablel communications. The 1984 Cable Act retained the local,I state and federal regulatory system established by the! … Section 534(a) requires cable operators to carry the signals of local commercial television stations and qualified low power stations.

State v. Wehinger

182 Wash. 360 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1935

The fifth section establishes the minimum percentages necessary to be made by an applicant. … The words considered stricken by the trial court and disregarded were so clearly foreign to the basic science law and also to the chiropractic law that, besides being inadvertent, they were nothing more than a legal conclusion

Vallandigham v. Clover Park School District No. 400

154 Wash. 2d 16 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2005

Even an admission that the district recognized that injury would probably occur is not enough to establish knowledge of certain injury. … Each of these strategies was clearly intended to contain or *34 halt R.M.’s aggressive behavior.

Inland Empire Distribution Systems, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission

112 Wash. 2d 278 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1989

The APA establishes the scope of review of WUTC actions upon applications for motor carrier permits. See Northern Pac. Transp. Co. v. State Utils. & Transp. … We hold the WUTC findings are not clearly erroneous in view of the entire record.

Tacoma & Eastern Lumber Co. v. Field & Co.

100 Wash. 79 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1918

This testimony was intended to establish to what extent the lath failed to meet the standard. … They were not experts in this line; this was not a question of fact *90 upon which, they were specially qualified to speak. .

Citoli v. City of Seattle

61 P.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 21, 2003

Clearly, it is far sounder to defer to the other duly constituted branches of government in this regard. … Furthermore, Mayor Schell and Chief Stamper are entitled to qualified immunity unless Citoli (1) identifies the right violated, (2) shows that the officials should have known the constitutional parameters of the violation

Okert v. United States

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 28, 2024

This means a plaintiff must show the 11 condition is (1) known, (2) dangerous, (3) artificial, and (4) latent to establish that 12 the immunity exception applies to the defendant. … Defendant also argues that “[j]urisdictional dismissals are routinely 9 granted in FTCA cases when, as here, the plaintiff fails to establish that the claim 10 falls within [the FTCA’s] waiver of sovereign immunity.”

Sheila Larose, Appellant/cross-resp v. King County And Pda, Respondent/cross-appellants

437 P.3d 701 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 19, 2019

In other words, employers generally are immunized from negligence liability. Carrera v. Olmstead, 189 Wn.2d 297, 303, 401 P.3d 304 (2017). … A mental condition caused by long-term harassment may not qualify as an industrial injury.

Afoa v. Port of Seattle

421 P.3d 903 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2018

. ¶ 22 Principles of common law survive RCW 4.22.070, but there is no clearly established common law right to hold tortfeasors with a nondelegable duty vicariously liable for another entity's breach of the same duty. 9 It … RCW 4.22.070(1) ("except entities immune from liability to the claimant under Title 51 RCW"). Nonparty at Fault.

Brooks v. Skagit County Public Health

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 15, 2023

No. 5 at 1– 4 4; see id. at 4 (“Brooks 100% qualifies, however, [Defendants] denied [her] application. White 5 Americans were excluded . . . . … For that reason, 12 any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), the claim(s) asserted, the specific 13 facts that Ms. Brooks believes support each claim, and the specific relief requested.

Rice v. City of Roy

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 7, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY – GENERALLY 10 Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 11 civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly … the light most 16 favorable to the party asserting the injury; and (2) whether the right was clearly established when 17 viewed in the specific context of the case.

Dave v. Rails to Trails Conservancy

863 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 28, 1994

. '§ 1241, was designed to establish recreational trails in urban areas as well as “within scenic areas and along historic travel routes of the Nation.” 16 U.S.C. § 1241 (a). … If a State, political subdivision, or qualified private organization is prepared to assume full responsibility for management of such rights-of-way and for any legal liability arising out of such transfer or use, and for

Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'N

87 P.3d 1176 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 15, 2004

Proposals that qualify for the mixed use designation and incorporate mixed uses in a comprehensive site development should demonstrate compliance with the following concepts: 1. … stating that the resolution would "not take effect until the effective date of the ordinance that creates the zoning category referenced herein (new SMC 11.19.2405) and the effective date of the ordinance/resolution that establishes

Ewalan v. Schreiber

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 16, 2024

immunity. … To avoid confusing the jury, the court 10 also intends to remove any and all references to qualified immunity from the preliminary 11 instructions. (See 4/11/24 Order at App’x A.)